September 18, 2009

This happens every single day right now: an illegal immigrant roofer falls off a roof and is hurt. He doesn't have health insurance. Is he denied health care?

Of course not. America is a civilized country and we won't let suffering people within our borders go untreated. So, an ambulance rushes him to a hospital emergency room and he spends as many nights in the hospital as it takes to treat him. He pays nothing because he has no money. The roofing contractor doesn't pay either (his motto: privatize profits, socialize costs). The illegal alien's cost is simply added to the bills paid by people with insurance.

No, the big issues about illegal aliens, health care, and amnesty revolve around the indirect effects on the birthrate that nobody is supposed to think about in modern America.

If the roofer eventually goes home to Latin America because there is no construction work anymore in America without fathering any children in the U.S., then the costs he imposes on us are finite. If, however, he fathers a number of anchor babies within the U.S., then the costs become long term and difficult to fully foresee.

Clearly, one reason for Obama's repeated announcements that he's going to push through "comprehensive immigration reform" Real Soon Now is to dissuade unemployed illegal immigrants from going home: Sure, it's cheaper to be unemployed back home in Mexico than in LA, but you'll miss out on the amnesty if you leave now.

Add to that Obama's message to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute on Wednesday that the 12-million (or whatever) illegal aliens he intends to amnesty in 2010 would benefit from his subsidized health insurance, and you have another inducement for them to stay here, or to rush on in, even though there aren't jobs, so they'll be on the amnesty list next year.

A massive question that nobody thinks about other than Democratic political strategists is whether the synergy of Obama health and amnesty plan attracts maternal-minded women from Mexico. Maternal-minded women tend to be more cautious than men about crossing the border illegally and living without health insurance for their children. Plenty of them do sneak in anyway and have babies (according to the Public Policy Institute of California, the 2005 total fertility rate for foreign-born Latinas in California was 3.7 babies per lifetime, versus 1.6 for American-born whites and 1.4 for American-born Asians, and about 2.4 in Mexico itself -- the U.S. is attracting Mexican women who can't afford to have as many children as they want in their own country).

But think about what's coming if we have another amnesty and we have subsidized health insurance.

We know that the 1986 illegal alien amnesty, even without health insurance, brought in a flood of women from south of the border, who then had an extraordinary number of children in California over the next eight or so years. Demographer Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote:

“Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. ...

“Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States. Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States... As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. We also know that unauthorized immigrants tend to have less education than other immigrants and that they are more likely to come from rural areas. Both characteristics are associated with high levels of fertility. As a result, changes in the composition of the Hispanic immigration population probably increased fertility rates.

This post 1986 amnesty-induced Latino Baby Boom is one of the sizable events in recent American social history and a major contributor to California's current dire financial straits, yet it simply is off the media map as if it never happened. I've been whooping about it for seven years, but I don't recall anybody else ever mentioning it. The national Baby Boom of 1946-1964 is rehashed endlessly, but this more recent and more relevant Baby Boom is utterly unknown.

When it comes to health insurance by itself, I don't have a strong opinion. The current system of employer-provided insurance, which is a byproduct of a loophole in WWII wage controls, is ridiculous. If this was Finland, with negligible immigration and a broadly skilled and healthy population, I'd probably be fine with the government-dominated health insurance system they have there. But, we're not Finland. As Milton Friedman said at the 1999 World Libertarian Conference: "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."

Many have commented on the craziness of trying to hold a debate over health insurance, when there are multiple plans floating around, each 800 pages long. Worse, though, we're not supposed to publicly debate (or even think about) the most important impact of these bills: the long-term impact on the population.

42 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The problem the Democrats have is that they are a coalition of sexo-ethnic identity groups that all depend on each other to gain power. Without any one of the key groups (blacks, hispanics, women, gays, jews) they fall apart. The last thing Obama needs right now is for a major defection.

Now that E-Verify is becoming a nationwide verification application to extract illegal immigrants from businesses. It is now growing in aggressive performance for placing true US workers in the job line and outing illegal labor. This operation should now extend to certainly more purposeful uses? That means not just federal contractors but everybody who draws a pay check? Should a health care reform pass all obstacles in the House and Senate chambers, it could have an invaluable function of checking people who are not only applicants for jobs, but health care reform registry. In the future it should be considered to vet a person’s nationality status, when applying for a mortgage? The United States banking system, financial institution were all but swept away on a deluge of corruption that has very sinister undertones in an organization called ACORN.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform now is under state and federal investigations at this very moment. Other involved institution impacted both Freddie Mac/Freddie Mae and a scheme incorporating underhand minority lending practices. But you might not have heard any of this, from the liberal media about the massive illegal alien mortgage accusations. The whole debacle was the involvement in a corrupt enabling banking industry and ethnic lobbyists, using unethical methods, along with Bush administration to guarantee loans for low income and people that could not possibly afford mortgages. Didn't Wall Street, the government regulators learn anything from the Savings and loan crisis in the 1980’s?

GOOGLE—Michelle Malkin, she has her own blog and also Google illegal immigrants—mortgages—home loans. Find out about the shady deals which had a massive impact on the 2009 real estate crash. In Addition read how we as citizens and legal residents can demand permanent E-VERIFY. Tell the politicians in Washington at 202-224-3121 It’s about time they worked for the USworking man/woman, instead of paying-off favors to the wealthy business lobbyists? NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH has more answers about corrupt lawmakers and the issues that effects us all. HELP AMERICA SURVIVE.

I wonder if things might have been different had conservatives dominated or won the culture war. All those amnestied Hispanics in the 80s might have become potential patriots if they'd been acculturated and assimilated according to solid Anglo-American values--as happened with so many Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the first half of the 20th century. Alas, despite--or because of--the Reagan Revolution, 80s was a crass materialistic period. Culture was not about family, honor, nation. Even 'conservative' movies like Rambo were rock-n-roll mindless and nihilistic, more about body counts and mayhem than winning hearts and minds. All it promoted were the cult of machismo and gun violence. It was Scarface with a flag wrapped around it. And then came the rise of RAP MUSIC, a truly deranged and hateful genre. And, the drug culture meant many young Latinos--like blacks--would slip into gang culture. So, Hispanics looked to black culture than white culture. Indeed, even white culture increasingly became 'black'. Today, Eminem may be the hottest white music star. And, the victory of multiculturalism in the academia and media meant Hispanics would be encouraged and rewarded for choosing Liberation Theology Tribalism over patriotic assimilation.

Is a US over-populated with Hispanics better than a US over-populated with blacks? It is my theory that a good number of conservatives supported the 1986 amnesty bill--and before that the 1965 immigration bill--because they feared the rise of black numbers. Indeed, the same case could be made for the massive immigration from Eastern/Southern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century. Americans--mostly of Northern European origin--didn't particularl like the 'lesser' Europeans--Italians, Greeks, Poles, etc--but preferred them as workers and neighbors to blacks. Indeed, if Southern and Eastern Europeans hadn't been brought to this country, I wonder if the current white and black shares of the America population would be about the same. A frightening notion. By the 60s, it was becoming apparent that whites of all backgrounds were not having many kids whereas black birthrate remained high. As Europeans also had few kids, America could only look to Latin America and Asia. Though American whites didn't particularly care for those people, they were still preferable to blacks as neighbors, workers, associates. They could also be used as a buffer or middlemen between the white and black communities. The black percentage of the population has been kept artificially constant through the influx of non-white/non-black immigrants since the 1960s.

Anyway, let's talk about today. A Mexicanizing America is not a good thing. LA today is more an Mexican than an American city, and it sucks. But since white birthrate is pitifully low, if there were no Hispanics in this country blacks are bound to catch up to white numbers in percentage terms(blacks went from 30 million in 1990 to 40 million in 17 yrs!!), and this country will eventually be like Cuba or Brazil. Cuba is stable only because it's a police state. Brazil is a raging hell hole. If the fate of this country is to be overpopulated with non-whites, wouldn't it be better to have it turn into Mexico than South Africa? Of course, I would rather have a majority white America, but ending immigration--legal and illegal--still does NOTHING about the problem of rising black numbers. Without new immigrants, the dwinding number of whites will gradually be at the mercy of an America turning into a giant New Orleans.

From overseas it seems to me that if you are going to have a public option, meaning a public insurance plan with premiums rather than just paying for it out of taxes, then forcing illegal immigrants to get on it would be for the best.

One problem that Mr. Sailer points out quite well is that at the present time when a transient laborer gets injured he gets treated for free. Putting him on a plan and requiring him to pay premiums while he is healthy would seem to me to be a good idea.

Of course policing the plan is a problem, because young healthy people generally don't want to pay for something they don't think they will use. This is particularly the case if they are not making a whole lot of money, and is a problem in Japan where I live, it is quite common for people to disappear from the social insurance system for a while and then reappear when they get married, have a good job, or get an illness or injury, and in the last case the state winds up bailing them out (they suddenly get back on the plan and of course there are no questions asked regarding pre-existing conditions). Still it does seem to be better, and indeed privatizes the risk somewhat rather than placing the entire burden on the state, meaning those of us who pay taxes.

I wonder if things might have been different had conservatives dominated or won the culture war. All those amnestied Hispanics in the 80s might have become potential patriots if they'd been acculturated and assimilated according to solid Anglo-American values--as happened with so many Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the first half of the 20th century.

You must be new here. Google "Race and IQ" and see why Mestizos are a permanent underclass no matter what happens to the "culture."

It seems the purpose of Comprehensive Health Care/Immigration/Etc. Reform is not the improvement of health care or the reduction of immigration, but the finalization of comprehensive population control - e.g., controlling the population totally, comprehensively regardless of its demography.

The C-Span archives was opened sometime ago and I recently watched a Lawrence E. Harrison lecture that I found quite interesting. He wrote the book, The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It from Itself

It's among other things about a) how catholic cultures do worse that protestant cultures b) Latin America - Hispanics - Latinosc) Arab, Islamic, Voodoo, Confucian, Jewish and more cultures and their development potential and achievements

His lecture is actually relevant to this post, if anyone are hungry for a little video - 1 hour and 10 minutes: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=196327-1

steve probably won't allow this post to appear, as i'm sure he is beyond tired of hearing this from me, but:

transforming american indians and mestizos into "hispanics" and "latinos" has to be considered one of the great re-branding home runs of all time.

it instantly confers some kind of respectable status and identity on people who are in reality third world american indians. it immediately transfers all accomplishments of white guys from spain onto short fat brown people from central and south america.

now instead of just being relatively unproductive american indians who create slums and dumps wherever they go, they're instead "hispanics" who have a long, "rich", and "vibrant" cultural history. in reality, white guys from europe forced them to speak spanish, forced them to become catholics, and introduced them to european and north african architecture. they even play the sports that the europeans showed them, and watch primarily european people in their television programming.

somehow, american indians from the US and canada have not been afforded the same re-branding. they're still just plain old american indians, even when they have names like "david johnson" and only speak english.

i don't fully understand how this stroke of marketing and political science genius has been accomplished. however, if the same transformation could be applied to africans living in the US , then basically one of america's biggest problems could be solved with the stroke of a pen, the way obama proposes to solve his immigration situation with the stroke of a pen.

i hereby forward the motion that every human in the united states that has an english name and is a monolingual english speaker, from this point onward be identified as an "anglo". think of how many problems would be solved by eliminating the "white" and "black" categories from our society.

somehow, american indians from the US and canada have not been afforded the same re-branding. they're still just plain old american indians, even when they have names like "david johnson" and only speak english.

this got a chuckle out of me. in our local paper, every year they have a few stories about some 'native american' festival or other. they always have a big picture spread, and it's always filled with white guys with "names like "david johnson"" looking like damn fools all dressed up in feathers doing some big dance and calling themselves 'native americans' because there's a squaw in their family tree from 8 generations back.

"I wonder if things might have been different had conservatives dominated or won the culture war. All those amnestied Hispanics in the 80s might have become potential patriots if they'd been acculturated and assimilated according to solid Anglo-American values--as happened with so many Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the first half of the 20th century."

You must be new here. Google "Race and IQ" and see why Mestizos are a permanent underclass no matter what happens to the "culture."

--

Richard,

Don't pay no mind to what the poster "Andrea" said ... this blogger is a fraud/provacateur who changes names more than most people change their underwear.

"Nyx Hemera" use to be known as "Andrea Freiboden" who then changed "her" name to "Andrea Freeland"..., then to "Andrea Ostrov Letania"..., now apparently going by a Spanish surname.

Wow, a gender AND a racial drag queen. Must have been a longtime, childhood fan of Michael Jackson.

Your comment is interesting. I especially think the part about branding anyone who speaks English as Anglo is relevant.

I never liked being classified as "white, non-Hispanic" because it makes it appear that whether or not one speaks Spanish is the defining characteristic in the population of a nation founded by English speaking peoples.

This becomes clear when you consider what makes one Hispanic. We know that Hispanic is not a race. Hispanics can be of European, African, Japanese or countless other descents, provided they originated in a Spanish speaking nation.

For example, an Italian who was born in Argentina is considered Hispanic if he immigrates to America. But his cousin who was born in Jersey is considered "white, non Hispanic". In addition, his other cousin born in Milan who immigrates to the US is also considered "white, non-Hispanic" even though all are genetically similar.

The Hispanic designation is given to the Argentine immigrant because he is from a Spanish speaking nation and Spanish is his mother tongue.

Well I am from an English speaking nation, the USA, and English is my mother tongue, along with over 240 million others in the USA. Therefore, we should be called "white, anglo" and the Hispanics whose mother tongue is Spanish could be referred to as "white, non anglo".

Of course once the Hispanics have assimilated and English is their mother tongue, like Eric Estrada, they should be classified as "white, anglo" just like every other assimilated group.

Doing it this way makes English the definitive characteristic of the population, not Spanish, which is historically accurate for the US.

"Your comment is interesting. I especially think the part about branding anyone who speaks English as Anglo is relevant."

Reminds me of an American Ashkenazi Jew I know who moved to Israel with her husband, stayed there and raised a family. She used to send annual e-mails out to old friends in the U.S., and in one of them she referred to herself and other Israelis who immigrated from Anglosphere countries as "Anglo-Saxons". Maybe that's the term they use over there. As it happens, her sons are all tall and blond, thanks to the Mediterranean sun and the Polish admixture their mother's ancestors picked up over the centuries.

Steve -- Even in relatively uniform nations like Finland or Japan, a public option becomes the only option, and you have ...

Rationing.

We have rationing now, based on how people can afford health plans. What happens with public options is that power-patronage appears. With connected folks getting great care (think Ted Kennedy) and the rest being shuffled off to die without water or pain meds. This btw is "a feature" of NHS in Britain.

Obama MUST HAVE a Public Health care program, first because it is contested territory like Verdun, second because it offers a permanent class of public employees, doctors, nurses, health care workers, who will all vote Dem, and third above all because it expands power-patronage to 1/6th the economy.

EVERY decision is based on race and connections. A Black or Hispanic patient? All stops pulled out to treat them. A White patient? They have as Colorado's Richard Lamm said, a "Duty to die" if they are older.

Moreover, buried in the bill is a BILLION to mandate AA in Black doctors in the profession. Currently, according to the AMA, about 4% of all doctors in the US are Black. That is supposed to change by 2020 to some much higher number over the next 20 years.

That can be only achieved by much lower standards of accreditation, as you've demonstrated with the Ricci posts. It extends basically the 4/5ths rule of the EEOC to Medical Accreditation. About 5% of the population is Middle Class Blacks, about 7.5% Ghetto Blacks (there is a 60-40 split according to the WSJ in Middle and Ghetto class Blacks) so the current 4% of doctors being Black is likely the ceiling you can get without lowering standards. No matter how bright a Ghetto Black kid, decades of substandard schooling and illiterate parents cannot provide the cultural, social, and intellectual platform for any but a few superstars (perhaps one and one only from each ghetto area PER DECADE) to become a person who gets through Medical school let alone passes board certification.

Andrea Nyx Hemera, You don't know what you are talking about.Prior to the early 2oth century, the USA never had any immigration restrictions whatsoever (apart from Chinese and Japanese exclusion, and a constitutional clause forbidding naturalization to non-Whtes). The broad consensus was that this was beneficial as there was an urgent need for 'bodies' to fill-up an empty land. Brazil and Argentina pursued the same policy (no restrictions at all on European immigration), for the same reason - but they never scrapped that policy. The backlash happened later - particularly in the aftermath of World War 1 which wrecked Europe and displaced and pauperized millions, when the WASPs (probably rightly), that if 'selective controls' were not introduced they would effectively lose the stewardship of the country they founded. The motive you attribute that somehow immigration was encouraged to marginaize blacks is nonsense - there is no historical corroboration for that contention whatsoever.In fact blacks were virtually unknown in the northern and mid-western industrial areas to which the immigrants went to.At that time they were mostly a southern farm-laboring people. Secondly, your 'hip-hop' theory of Mexican deliquency is, quite frankly, just laughable.

"Andrea" is a weird, creepy troll who mixes in reasonable observations paraphrased from other sources with strange obsessions. If she is allowed to continue to post here, this creepy side will emerge. The first creepy thing about him is that he pretends to be woman.

Hey, what about us Canadian illegals? In all seriousness, do only Latin Americans qualify for the proposed amnesty, or will all illegals in America qualify? I guess what I really mean is do white people qualify for the amnesty too?

Hey, what about us Canadian illegals? In all seriousness, do only Latin Americans qualify for the proposed amnesty, or will all illegals in America qualify? I guess what I really mean is do white people qualify for the amnesty too?

My family is white (British). We were here illegally in the 1980s, and we got amnestied after 1986. When we talked to the immigration officer after our visas expired, he said tiredly, "just stay here, we probably won't catch you." Doubt much has changed since then.

AnonymousFrom overseas it seems to me that if you are going to have a public option, meaning a public insurance plan with premiums rather than just paying for it out of taxes, then forcing illegal immigrants to get on it would be for the best...

They will NEVER be net contributors to the "system" - their IQs are simply too low:

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayerby Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.April 4, 2007heritage.org

...As Chart 5 shows, if the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone were counted, the average low-skill household had a fis­cal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes). The net fiscal deficit of the average low-skill household actually exceeded the household's earnings. If interest and other financial obligations relating to past government activities were added as well, the average deficit per household rose to $27,301...

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayersby Robert RectorMay 21, 2007heritage.org

...the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)....

Furthermore, as their portion of the general population increases, it will not be the case that their contributions to the "system" increase, but rather that the "system" will simply CEASE TO EXIST ALTOGETHER!!!.

Ive always wondered,well,many things,like why dont conservatives who "worship" Ronald Reagan admit that he was either cowardly,stupid or traitorous when he signed the amnesty bill. I remember that clearly as a problem that I didnt really need to pay attention to;how wrong I was!The 1st time I became aware of this as a problem was reading a review of a book called "Mexifornia" in the NR. (Where i first discovered Steve!) The guys thesis was that once you have a sufficient number of Mexicans--you get Mexico. I also wonder why we cant charge Mexico for the health care of its people. The roofers bill being presented to Mexico and paid in one form or another,such as cheaper oil,lower duites on exports,seizure of assets. Make the sons of bitches pay! As for Obama, this admin is who/whom gone amuck. Theyre the scum of the earth.

"This happens every single day right now: an illegal immigrant roofer falls off a roof and is hurt. He doesn't have health insurance. Is he denied health care?

Of course not. America is a civilized country and we won't let suffering people within our borders go untreated. So, an ambulance rushes him to a hospital emergency room and he spends as many nights in the hospital as it takes to treat him. He pays nothing because he has no money."

As a non-American I thought I'd just point out that a large percentage of people in Europe and Australasia assume that in American people without health insurance are simply left to die in the street. This is one of the reasons why there is so much anti-American feeling in the rest of the West.

While right wingers like me have come to the conclusion if Americans were the semi-Nazi hard-arses that other westerners percieve them to be they wouldn't churn out so many sentimental PC movies and university textbooks, many liberal westerners are unable to put two and two together.

I think some conservative American needs to produce a documentary movie about what actually goes on in America, to counter the sensationalist image of the U.S portrayed by media savvy left-wing intellectuals.

Reagan was magnificent on tax rates and weapons systems and anti-marxism, but he was a disastrous failure [in both in his public & private lives] on what were then called "Family Values".

Caucasian Total Fertility Rates plunged off the side of a cliff in the early 1970s [dropping from 2.385 in 1970 to 1.652 in 1976], and now, almost forty years later, they have yet to come anywhere near to returning to replacement level [note that in the official calculations of Total Fertility Rates, there does not appear to have been a distinction made between "White" and "Non-Hispanic White" until about 1989, so the offical "White" figures of the 1980s are grossly exaggerated by the admixture of illegal alien Mexican aboriginals]:

Revised Birth and Fertility Rates for the 1990sand New Rates for Hispanic Populations, 2000and 2001: United StatesVolume 51, Number 12; August 4, 2003Page 16, Table 2, Number of births, etcnvsr51_12.pdf, cdc.gov

Yet I never once heard Reagan talk about Total Fertility Rates [or the ongoing collapse in the American Caucasian population], and the first public figures that I can remember raising the subject were Tom Bethell [at the American Spectator] and Ben Wattenberg - both well into the 1990s.

Heck, Reagan never even wasted any of what we would now call his "political capital" on fighting Roe -v- Wade.

Reagan lives in Seattle with his wife, Doria (née Palmieri), a clinical psychologist whom he married in 1980. They have no children.

Ron Reagan stated, in a 2004 New York Times interview, that he does not claim any religion, but that his sympathies are with Buddhism.

In a June 26, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, while discussing reasons why he would not run for political office, Ron Reagan stated "I'm an atheist... polls all say that, you know, people won't elect an atheist."

How The Gipper could have allowed this sort of nihilism to have taken root in and consumed and destroyed his very own family is simply beyond me - it's as though he was completely oblivious to the greatest crisis that has confronted the civilized world in the last 1500 years.

Mike Courtman - As a non-American I thought I'd just point out that a large percentage of people in Europe and Australasia assume that in American people without health insurance are simply left to die in the street. This is one of the reasons why there is so much anti-American feeling in the rest of the West.

Mike, totally agree with you. Here in the UK an Irish woman was telling me just that, no insurance, you die untreated. And then went into a sub-Obama rant about the haves and have-nots of the US population.

I tried to correct her on the basics, she just wasnt having it.

Also

to counter the sensationalist image of the U.S portrayed by media savvy left-wing intellectuals.

When they control almost every aspect of the media, they dont have to be that savvy. They just need to all keep to the party line.

As a non-American I thought I'd just point out that a large percentage of people in Europe and Australasia assume that in American people without health insurance are simply left to die in the street. This is one of the reasons why there is so much anti-American feeling in the rest of the West."

An interesting perspective. Thanks for your comment.

I once met an Australian woman who told me (in that chiding, school-marm tone that Helen Caldicott had down so pat) that in Australia "we have universal health-care. Doesn't cost a thing."

I'm ashamed to admit that I did not respond, not wanting to give any offence, but what I should have replied was "Really, so you don't pay ANY taxes? That's great. Maybe I should move there."

> stories about some 'native american' festival or other. they always have a big picture spread, and it's always filled with white guys with "names like "david johnson"" looking like damn fools all dressed up in feathers doing some big dance and calling themselves 'native americans' because there's a squaw in their family tree <

LOL. I'm in TN and corroborate this. I worked with one of these oddballs. They are insufferable. If you wanted this person to go into a loooong rant, all you needed to do was to mention within earshot the words "Christopher Columbus" in any context. The person was blond with blue eyes and spent most leisure time in this wig-wam cult.

Are whites crazy now or is it just their natural range of eccentricity showing?

In '03 I was talking to a kid from Egypt whose family had moved to the Bay Area. He was attending public middle school and said 2/3 of his teachers were black. He said one of his black teachers told him, "white people are going to have to come down a few notches."

Heck, Reagan never even wasted any of what we would now call his "political capital" on fighting Roe -v- Wade.

I don't know if you know this, but Reagan signed a bill basically legalizing abortion in Cali. In addition Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law. All that Reagan did in office was carry out the economic program of GE.

Reagan literally had no private morality. In short Ronald Reagan was the perfect model libertarian.

When Reagan signed a bill to effectively legalize abortion in California (I think it was 1970), the idea was to reduce the state's future welfare spending - an early stab at reducing government. Should they have known that black women wouldn't take the bait? I don't know, but it was a decent try. Admit it, you'd be thrilled if government were still run by the type of people who were advising Reagan then, even if they weren't fully prescient.

"When Reagan signed a bill to effectively legalize abortion in California (I think it was 1970), the idea was to reduce the state's future welfare spending - an early stab at reducing government. Should they have known that black women wouldn't take the bait? "

Uh, check the numbers. 50% of black pregnancies end in abortions. Only about 10% of whites do. Blacks account for almost 3x as many abortions as their numbers would predict. Whites account for only 1/4 as many as their numbers would predict.

Just because blacks have a little higher birthrate(1.9) than whites(1.6) doesn't mean they aren't aborting heavily.

The growth in the black population is all from immigration. Remember that when a woman moves to the US, the census counts her as 1 immigrant, but the kids she has after she gets here count as native. So really we are getting more like 4 people for every 1 immigrant woman because of higher immigrant fertility. All growth since about the mid 70's is from immigrants and their kids. Otherwise we would still be about 250 million.

"Some hospitals in Finland are being forced to decide who should receive treatment on the basis of priority. The University Hospital of Turku, for example, is cutting nursing staff levels as a savings measure. Departments are being asked to determine what functions should be trimmed."

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.